Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the catalog size, that results include slug, evidence grade, and summary, and that it is a search operation. However, it does not describe search matching semantics (e.g., partial or exact), result ordering, or pagination behavior beyond the schema's limit parameter, leaving some behavioral gaps.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two compact sentences with no wasted words. The primary action and scope are front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second sentence adds a clear routing instruction to a sibling tool. Every sentence earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple search tool, this is nearly complete: all parameters are schema-documented, the returned fields are named, and the path to deeper detail via get_supplement is clear. The only minor omission is an explicit statement that results are returned as a list or array, but the field enumeration makes the response shape largely inferable.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema already documents both parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context by specifying that 'query' can be a name, category, or topic, which clarifies what kinds of search terms are valid. The 'limit' parameter is not elaborated in the description, but the schema already explains its default and maximum.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb ('Search'), a defined resource ('catalog of 993 evidence-graded supplements'), and the dimensions of search ('by name, category, or topic'). It also explicitly routes users needing full analyses to the sibling get_supplement, which cleanly distinguishes this tool from its siblings.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives clear usage context: use this to search the catalog and get brief matches, and it explicitly points to get_supplement for the full analysis. It does not mention all sibling tools (get_guide, list_guides) or when to avoid this tool, but the alternative guidance it provides is concrete and sufficient for the primary decision.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.